Boltanski. on Critique_emancipation

8/13/2019 Boltanski. on Critique_emancipation

1/102

ON CRITIQUE

A SOCIOLOGY OF EMANCIPATION

LUC BOLANSKI

Trlted by Greory Ellott

poly


2/102

First published in French as D ciiqu Editions GALIMARD, Paris 2009

Ouvrage pubi avec e soutien du Centre national du ivre- ministre fraais chargde a cuture

Pubished with the support of the National Centre for the Book French Miistryof Cuture

This Egish edition Poity Press 2011

Polity Press65 Bridge StreetCambridge CB2 1 UR UK

Poity Press350 Main StreetMade MA 02148 USA

A rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purpose of criticismad review o part of this pubication may be reproduced stored i a retrieva system ortrasmitted in any form or by any means eectronic mechaical photocopyigrecordig or otherwise without the prior permissio of the pubisher

ISBN13: 9780745649634 (hardback)ISBN13 9780745649641 (paperback

A cataogue record for this book is availabe from the British Library.

Typeset in 105 on 12 pt Saboby Servis Fimsetting Ltd Stockport CheshirePrited and bound by MPG Books Group UK

The pubisher has used its best endeavours to ensure that the URLs for external websites

referred to i this book are correct ad active at the time of going to press However thepublisher has o resposibility for the websites ad ca make no guarantee that a site wiremai ive or that the cotet is or will remain appropriate

Every effort has bee made to trace al copyright holders but if any have beeniadvertenty overooked the pubisher wi be peased to iclude any ecessary credits iany subsequent reprint or edition

For further informatio on Poity visit our website wwwpolitybookscom

For JenEe Botnsk


3/102

I've got to tell you: me, al my life, Ive thought for myself; free, I wasborn diferent. I am who I am I m different from everyone . I don'tknow much. But I'm suspicious o f lots of things I can say, pass it to

me when it comes to thinking ahead, I'm a dog handler- release a littleidea in front of me and I'm going to track it foryou into the deepest ofall forests, amen! Listen how things should be would be to get all sages,politicians, important elected representatives together and settle theissue for good proclaim once and for all, by means of meetings, thatthere's no devil, he doesnt exist, cannot Legally binding That's theonly way everyone w ould get some peace and quiet Why doesn't thegovernment deal with it? Oh, I know very well, its not possible. Don'ttake me for an ignoramus Putting ideas in order is one thing, dealingwith a country of real people, thousands and thousands of woes, isquite another So many people its terrifying to think about it andnot one of them at peace all of them are born, grow up, marry, want

food, health, wealth, fame a secure job, want it to rain, want things towork.

Joo Guimares Rosa, Diarim

CONTENTS

PefceAcknowledgeents

1 The Sruure of Criia heories

2 Critica Socioogy and Pragmatic Socioogy of Critique

3 The Power of Instituions

4 The Necessity of Critique

5 Political Regimes of Dominaion

6 Emancipation in the Pragmatic Sense

Notes

Index

Vll

ixXlll

1

1 8

5 0

83

116

150

161

188


4/102

PRFAC

This book originted in three tks given t the Institute for SociReserch in Frnkfurt in November 28. rofessor Ae Honnethwith whom I hve kept up ver rewrding diogue for sever ersnow took the inititive of entrusting me with the tsk t once stimuting nd intimidting of mking this contribution to the series ofAdorno Letures I hope he wi ccept m wrm thnks for hvingprovided me with the opportunit to present in snthetic form someobservtions tht hve ccompnied m thinking over the st threeers

In returning to these ectures with view to pubiction I hvebeen unbe to resist reintroducig number of rguments tht I hdto eiminte so s not to eceed the time otted me In dditionI hve integted into the bod of the tet some more uptdteconsidertions on contemporr forms of domintion which I hdthe opportunit to present in October 2 8 t Humbodt Universitin Berin in the contet of ecture which the Centre Mrc Bochorgnizes nnu to mrk the strt of the cdemic er Th threeAdorno Lectures hve thus s it were been opened up giving rise tothe si segments tht mke up this work Nevertheess conscious ofthe difcut presented b the trsition from ecture form to bookform - tsk virtu impossibe in s much s the two formtsinvove different methods of rgument nd stistic prctices inwrting them up I hve sought to preserve t est to some etenttheir initi or chrcter The must therefore be red s if the were series o f sitks Consequent reders shoud not epect to nd nished work whose composition woud hve tken me mn moreers of bour nd whose size woud be (wi be?) much greterbut on series of remrks whose rticution hs certin not et

lX


5/102

PREFACE

reached the desired level of integraton and coherence, as if they hdbeen set down o paper in preparation for composing a book Or, ifyou like, at best a sort of prcis of critique.

The six segments can be assembled n tws to form three different parts. The rst two concern the issue of the relationshipbetween sociology and social critique This is a question that has

never stopped haunting sociology since the origins of the disciplineShould sociology, constituted on the model of the sciences, withan essentially descriptive orientation, be placed in the service ofa critique of society - which assumes considering the latter in anormative optic? If so, how should it go about making descriptionand critique compatible? Des an orientation towards critique necessarily have the efect of corrupting the integrity of sociology anddiverting it from its scientic project? Or, on the contrary, shouldit be acknowledged that it in a sense constitutes the purpose (orone of the purposes) of sociology, which, without it, would be afutile activity, remoe from the concerns of te people who make up

society? Questions of this kind have periodically arisen in the courseof the histry of sociology, hitching up with other pairs of oppositions en route for examle, between facts and values, ideology andscience, determinism and autonomy, structure and action, macrosocial and microsocial approaches, explanatio and interpretationand so forth.

Having, in the rst segment (which may be read as an introduction), rapidly presented some concepts that can be ued to describethe structre of critical theories in social science, in the second I dwellon a comparison between two programmes to which, in the courseof my professional career, I have sought to make a contribution The

rst is the critical sociology of the 1970s, particularly in the fogiven it in France by Pierre Bourdieu. The second is the pragmaticsociology of critique, developed by some of us in the Political andMoral Sociology Group of the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en SciencesSociales (EHESS) in the 1980s and 1990s, which was fashionedboth in oppostion to the rst and with a view to pursuing it basicintention In particular, in this chapter readers will nd a reciprocacritique of each of these programmes, from the perspective of theircontribution to social critique.

Segments 3 and 4 can be read as a second part, wherein is expoundedin its main lines an analytical framework intended to formulate afreshthe question of critique, such as it is given free rein not in the theoretical space of sociology, b ut in everyday reality. But this frameworkalso has the aim of providing tools that make it possible to reduce

X

PEFACE

te tensin between critical sociology and sociology of critique. It

herewith pursues an objective of pacication. This framework is

veloped fromthe postulate (of the rder of athoughtexperiment)

that theorganization o social life mustconfronta radical uncertainty

as regards the question of how things stand with what is. It dwells

on institutions, considered in the rst instance in their semantic

functions, as instruments geared towards the construction ofrealitythroughthe intermediary, inparticular, of operations for qualifying

ntities - persons and objects and dening test formats. The pos

sibility of critiqueis derivedfromacontradiction, lodgedat the heart

ofinstitutions, whichcanbe describedas hermeneutic contradiction.

Critique is therefore considered in its dialogical relationship with

the institutions it is arrayed against. It can be expressed either by

showing that the tests as conducted (i e as instances or, as analyti

cal philosophy puts it, as tokens )do not conformto theirformat (or

type ); orbydrawing fromthe world examplesandcases that do not

accordwithrealityas itis established, makingit possibletochallenge

the reality of reality and, thereby, change its contours. The distinc-tionbetween reality andworldsupplies the conceptualframeworkof

these analysesSegments 5 and 6 form a third part, more sharply focused o

current political problems Segment 5 presents some summary applications of the analytical framework outlined in the two precedingsegments, devoted to describing different regimes of domination.The term dominatio' in the sense in which it is used in this littleprcis - refers to historical s ituations where the work of critique sitself particularly impeded in various ways depending on the politcal context, and also in more or less apparent or covert fashion. In

tis segment I pay particular attention to a mode of domination -which can be characterized as managerial - that is in the process ofbeing established in Western democraticcapitalist societies. Finally,Segment 6 (which may be read as a provisional concusion) aims tosketch some of the paths critique might take today in order to proceedin the direction ofemancipation.

To conclude, I shall addthat theissueofcritique and the problems

posed bythe relationship between sociology and critique, to which

I have devoted much of my work for many years, have not only

captivatedmeby theirtheoretical attraction. For me, and nodoubt

more generally forsociologists of mygeneration,whocae intothe

disciplineinthe years immediatelypreceding o rfollowing May1 96 8,they have a quasi-biographical character. We have gone through

periods whensociety waspopulatedby powerful critical movements

Xl


6/102

PREFAE

nd then though peiods mked b thei etet But tod we e

phps enegphse tht will witnss thei etun Tis Histot cptl h s bound to hve n mpct on the little histo ofolog

Xll

ACKNOWLE DGE ME NS

To thnk ll those who mde contibution to the development ofthis wok is tsk imposs ible to cquit without omitting o neglectingsomeone M thnks go in pticul to the membes of the oliticlnd Mol Sociolog Goup (GSM) to m students t EHESS ndt the numeous eseches who hve stimulted m thinking bintevening eithe in m doctol semin o in tht of the GSM. Im especill indebted to Dmien de Blic Eve Chipello ElisbethClveie Bend Conein Nicols Dodie Anud Esquee BunoKsenti nd Cil Lemieu who with get geneosit ve edciticized nd commented on elie stges of this wok TomsoVitle of Miln Univesit hs lso been n ecting ede ndn impssioned (nd stiing) intelocuto I hve lso benetedfom discussions with students o collegues fom histo (AineBoltnski Robet Descimon Simon Ceutti Nicols Offenstdt)thopolog (Ctheine Als Fnois Bethom Mtthew Cehilippe Descol) litetue (hilippe Roussin Loc Nicols) ndlw (Olivie Cl who ws geneous enough to tust me with thes et unpublished mnuscipt of his thesis olo Npoli nd especill m de lte fiend In Thoms) In ddition to the ttention ofAel Honneth t Fnkfut m wok beneted getl fom the helpgiven b Muo Bsue who ws n intemedi of inehustibeintelligence nd good will between the Institute fo Socil Resechnd the GSM but lso fom the obsevtions of othe esechest the Institute - in pticul Robin Celiktes nd No Sieveding

I m gteful to Sidoni Bltte Ev Buddebeg nd to the two distinguished tnsltos who endeed these lectues - witten nddeliveed in Fench - into the lnguge of Adono: Bend Schwibsnd Achim Russe I m lso gteful to Gego Elliott who hving

Xl


7/102


8/102

THE STRUCTRE OF CRTCAL THEORIES

exercsing ower or of being sbected to ower does not escae teconscsness o f actors and ower reations are invariaby visibe othe eyes of an observer ower can therefore easi form the obect ofan emirica socioogy, on the one hand becse socia reations areshot throgh with forms of ower that are fairy readiy observabat east in certain sitations; and on the other hand becase owe

;reations are, in many cases, inscribed in reestabished formatsthat are themseves stabiized in the form of cstoms or registered intexts - for exame, ridica texts and other forms of regations AsMax Weber showed, ower ths tends to be rationaized, whateverits modaities, in the sense that its strctres and exercise are sbect,at east formay, to equiements ofjustication that imart a certainrobstness to them It is by invoking these reqirements that thosewho hod ower can caim it to be egitimate', thereby comeingthose who chaenge it to ise in geneality in sch a way as to sbectthe very rincies they invoke to critiqe By contrast, to characteze a form of ower as aritrary' signies that it is imossibe toake its easre b referring it to a reestabished format ensrigts exercse a certa consstency and thereby to stress the difctiesfacing those who endre it in forming redictabe exectations of itBecase it mst be b oth asserted and stied, ower seaks o f ower

The sme not tre of domination Critica theories of dominatinosit the existence of rofond, endring asymmetries which whieassming different forms in different contexts, are constanty

di

caed to te oint of conizing reaity as a whoe They adot thent of vew of the totaty The doinated and the dominant areeverywhere, whether the atter are identied as dominant cass dominant sex or, for exame, dominant ethnicity What is invove

is not

ony not directy observae, bt aso invariaby edes the conciosness of actors Domintion mst be nmasked It does not seak ofitsef and is conceaed in systems whose atent forms of ower areere their most sercia dimension Ths, fo r exame, contrastng h the emand t? get one, rendered manifest by an order givenn a herarchca reatnsh, are manoevres or even, in sti moretacit fashion, socia conditions eosited in an environment whichcombine to determine an actor to do something for the beet ofanother as if she were doing it of her own accord and for hersef It istherefore as if actos sfered the domination exercised over them not

ony nwittingy, bt sometimes even by aiding its exerciseAs a rest, theories of domination mst seect an obect sighty

dfferent from that of socioogies which, for convenience sake, wesha ca standard This discreancy is the rest of different forms

THE STRCTRE OF CRITICAL THEORES

ofotalization Asnempiria activity, sociologycan describe differ

et diensions of social life (and different forms ofpower) without

essarilyaimingtointegratethemintoacoherent totality- onthe

contary, even seekingtobringout thespecicityof eachofthem By

contrast, theoriesof domination unmaskthe relations between these

differentdimensions soas tohighlightthe waytheyforma system

Where sociology takes as its object societies, however it identies

them(anditcouldbesownthatit invariablyinvolves nationstates,

s is obviously the case, for example, in Durkheim) ,3 theories of

omination, relyingonsociologicaldescriptions, construct adifferent

kind of object thatcanbereferredto associalorders.In fact, it isonly

oncethiso bjecthasbeenconstructedthatanapproach tosocietyasa

totality conideredcriticallycanbeposited;4 andthat amodeof dom

inationcanbedescribedinits generality(andalso, innumerous cases,

that contradictions immanent inthis order can be identied,whose

exposure furnishesabasis for its critique . Infact, contradictionsare

distingishedfromthedisparateonlywithina nied framework) 5

The substitution of social order an object that is manifestly constrcted - for social relations - an object spposed to f

ollowfrom

empiicalobservation - represents thestrengthand weakness ofcriti

cal theories ofdomination Theyarealways liableto bedenounced

as illusory- that is tosay, asnot offering pictures whichprovidea

goodlikenessof reality,btmerelybeingtheexpression ofarej

ection

of reality basedonnothingbt particlar (andcontestable ) pnts of

vieworthedesire( andresentment) ofthose whocondemnit. 6

Morality, Critique and Reflexivity

Comared with the socaed natra sciences, the secicity of thesocia sciences is that they take as their ob ect hman beings grasednot in their bioogica dimensions, bt in so far as they are caabeof reexivity (that is why it is aroriate to distingish between thesocia and the hman sciences) Considered in this resect, hmanbeings are not content to act or react to the actions of others Theyreview their own actions or those of others in order to make dgements on them, often hinging on the isse of good and evi - that is,moal udgements This reexive caacity means that they aso reactto the reresntations given of their roerties or actions, incding

when the atter derive from socioogy or critica theoriesThe mora dgements formated by actors in the corse of their

everyday activities often take the form of citiques Mora activity

3


9/102

THE STRUTURE OF RITA THEORES

is a predominanty crtica activity. The socioogica doxa taght torstyear stdents (often invoking a poplarized form of Weberianepistemology) consists in making a sharp (if not ways cear) distinction between, on the one hand, critica jgements deivered bysocaed ordinary' peope and sstained by moraities' or ctres',which form part of the egitimate objects of description, and, on

the other hand, critica jdgements made by sociologists themseves(renamed vae jdgements'), which are to be banished (axioogicanetraity). This distinction is based on the Weberian separation offacts from values.8 Critica theories of domination necessariy reyon descriptive socia science to paint a pictre of the reality sbjectto critiqe Bt compared with sociologica descriptions that seek toconform to the vgate of netraity, the specicity of critica theoriesis that they contain critica jdgements on the socia order which theanalyst assmes rsponsibility for in her own name, ths abandoningany pretention to netraity

Ordinary Critiues and Metacritical Positions

The fact hat they are backed p by the d iscorse of trth of the socialsciences endows critical theories o f domination with a certain robstness in describing the reality caed into qestion, bt complicatesthe critical operation itself, which is essentia to them This confrontsthem with a dilemma

n the one hand, it prevents them making jdgements that reydirectly on the resorces, invariably expoited by ordinary critiqe,represented by spirital and/or mral resorces of a loca character.

Metacritical theories cannot jdge the city as it is by comparing itwith the City of God, or even by introdcing a secarized bt specic mora ideal that the metacritical theoretician naivey adopts onher own accont in order to jdge (and condemn) society as it is, asif it involved not one mora conception among others, bt the moraidea in itself (which wold contradict the comparativist reqirementto place the mora ideas present in all known societies on an eqalfootng) That is why critical theories of domination are clearly distingished from the very many inteecta movements which, basingthemseves on moral and/or religios exigencies, have deveopedradical critiqes and demanded from their flowers an absolte

change in lifestye (eg. primitive Christianity, Manichaeanism,millenarian sects, etc.)

n the other hand, however, critica theories of domination are

4

THE STRUTUR OF RTA THEORIES

nt asrat organms sspended in the heaven of metaphysics Theistence of a concrete relationship with a set of peope (denedas pblic, class, grop, sex or whatever) forms part of their sefdeition Unlike traitiona theory', crtical theory' possesses theobjective of eexivity. It can or even must (cording o RaymodGess) grasp the discontents of actors, explity consder them m

the very abor of theorization, in sch a way as to ater their relationship to social reaity and, thereby, that social reality itsef, in the

irection of emancipation10 As a conseqence, the kind of critiqetey make possible mst enable the di sclosre

of aspects of reaity n

an immediate relationship with the preoccpatns of actors - that ,als with ordinary critiqes. Critica theories feed off these ordinarycritqes, even if they deveop them differenty, reformate them,and are destined to retrn to them, since their aim is to ende ealityunacceptable 11 and thereby engage the peope to whom they areaddressed in action whose reslt shod be to change its contorsThe idea of a critica theory that is not backed by the experience o acolective, and which in some sense exists for ts own sake - that is,for no one - is incohrent

This dal reqirement paces a very strong constraint on thestructre of critica theories. n the one hand, they mst providethemseves with normative spports that are sfcienty atonomosof the particar mora corpses formed from already identied r ligios or politica approaches, and identied with as sch by speccgrops whose critical stances they arm In fact, were this not the case,the opponents of these theories (even those who might initiay havebeen favorabe to them) are bond to redce them to these positions and, conseqently, to denonce their ocal character, bond pwith particlar interests They wil then dissove into the sea of ordinary critiqes that accompany relations between grops and formthe fabric of everyday political life, in the broad sense. Bt, on theother hand, they mst try to meet these ordinary critiqes as if theyderived from them and were merey nveiling them to themseves,by indcing actors to acknowedge what they already knew bt, ina sense withot knowing it; to ealize what this reaity consists inand, thogh this reveation, to take their distance from this reaitas f it was poss ibe to exit from it - to remove themseves from t in sch a way as to conceive the possiility of actions intended to

change it Wen this second condition is not fed, critical theoriescan be rejected by consigning them to the sphere of topias'; or, asMichael Wazer more or ess does (in connection with the work ofMarcse in The Company of Citics) by regarding them as nothing

5


10/102

THE STRCTRE OF CRITCA THEORIES

more than the lamentations of rootless intellectals ct ff from thesense of relity that comes from belonging to a comnity and, as areslt, havng abandoned even the desire of acting to transform it

The kind of critical jdgement bilt into heories of dominationtherefoe has complex relations with the critqes formlated bypeople n the corse of everyday life It never coincides with them

and sbjects hem to more or less sstained attention depending onthe cae, rngg from rejection (critiqes formlated by actors derivefrom llss, partclary moral illsions) to partial acknowledgement (there somethg n tese ordinary critiqes that can pave theay or


11/102

THE STRCTRE OF CRTCA THEORIES

ispartofwhat she intends todescr ibe,adopting apositionof extriority is far frosefevident Thefact that itspo ssibilityeven posesaproblemina senseleadsthemove toexternalization tobecome selfconscios. This imaginary exit fromtheviscoityof the real initiayassmes stripping reaity of its character of implicit necessity andproceedingas ifit werearbitrary ( as ifit codbeotherthanitis or

even notbe); andthen, in a second phase , restoring to itthenecessity ithadinitiay beendivestedof, bt on whichthis operation ofdisplacement has conferredarelexive, genera character, inthesensethattheformsof necessityidentiedlocallyare reatedto aniverseof possibii ties . In sociology the possibi ity of this externalizationrests on the existenceof aaboratory - that is tosay, the empoymentof protocols and instrctions respect for which mst constrain thesociologist to control her desires (conscios ornconscios ) It is thsthat descriptivesocial sciencescancaimthatthey sstain adiscorseof trth. Itmst be addedthat this trthclaim,whichis bond pwith a description carried ot by occpying a more or ess extr

territoria postvisvis the society being described, generalygivesthe social scences, whatevertheyae, a critical edge ( andthis eve,albeit in highly limitedfashion, inthe case of expertise ) For, if theverysbstance of theiroject wasconstantlyin f viewof everyone,the social scienceswodsimpyhave noreasontoexist Inthis sense ,we ca nthereforesaytha socioogyisaready,init sveryconception,at least potentiaycritical

Inthe case oftheories ofdomination,theexteriorityonwhich critiqeis basedcan becaedcomplex, in the sensethat itis estabishedattwo different levels. Itmst rsto f all be basedonanexteriorityofthe rstkid to eqip itself with the reqisite data to createthe

pictreof thesocia order that wibe sbmitted tocitiqe Aetacriticatheoryis infact necessarily reliant onadescriptives ocioogyoranthroology. Btto becritica, scha theory alsoneeds tofrnishitsef, inways that can be explicitto verydiferent degrees, with themeans ofpassinga jdgementonthevale of the social order beingdescried

The Semantic Dimension of ritique of Domination.Domination vs Exploitation

etacritica theories of domination are often combined with theoriesof exploitation. The term exploitation has an economic orientation.Exploitation refers to the way that a sma nmber of peope make

8

THE STRCTRE OF CRITICAL THEORIES

se of differentials (whih can be very diverse in kind) in order oextract a prot at te expense of the great majority. In theories ofdonation, reference to expoitation serves to indicate the puposeo domination (as if domination in the pre state, which wod haveno rationale bt itself, was difclt to conceive). n the other hand that is, considered from the perspective of a critiqe of exploitation

domination also possesses a character of necessity It is difct toconceive expoitation that is not dependent on some form or other of domination (if they were not dominated, why wod hman beingset temseves be exploited? )

However, it mst be stressed that the concept of domination doesnt have a stricty economic orientation, bt rather (if I can pt it ikethis) a semantic one It is direct ed at the ed of the detemination ofwhat is that is to say, the eld in which the relationship betweenwhat (borrowing terms from Wittgenstein) can be called symbolicfoms and states of affais is established. We can aso say, in a different angage inspired by aw, that the critiqe of domination concerns

the establishment of qualications that is (as we shal see in moredetail ater), the operations which indivisiby x the popeties ofbeings and determine their woth. This work of qaication generalyrelies on fomats or types, invariaby combined with desciptions andor denitions, which are themselves stored in varios forms (sch asregations, codes, cstoms, ritas, narratives, embematic examples,etc). These formts incorporate classications (and, in particlar,cassications making it possibe to distribte people between gropsor categories) and combine them with rles that exercise a constrainton access to goods and their se They thereby play a majo r role in theformation and stabilization of asymmetries.

etacritical theories of domination tackle these asymmetries froma particar angle that of the miscognition by the actors themselvesof the expoitation to which they are sbject and, above all, of thesocia conditions that make this exploitation possible and aso,as a rest, of the means by which they cod stop it. That is whythey present themselves indivisibly as theories of power, theories ofexploitation and theoies of knowledge By this token, they enconterin an especially vexed fashion the isse of the reationship betweenthe knowledge of social reality which is that of ordinary actors,reexively engaged in practice, and the kowedge of socia realityconceived fro a reexivity reliant on forms and instrments oftotaization1 an isse which is itself at the heart of the tensions otof whichthe possiility of a social science mst b created.

9


12/102

THE STRUCTURE OF CRITICAL THEORIES

Some Examples of ompromise betwen Sociology adSocial Critique

A rereading of e sociological radiions wic, o various degrees,incorporae a criical dimension, underaken wih he wo consrainsa have jus been menioned in mind, would doubless make i

possible o idenify he main compromises ha have been forged ocombine e requiremen of descripive neuraliy (simple exerioriy)and he search for bases paving e way for criique (complex exerioriy). As is he case every ime we nd ourselves in e presence ofheoreical corpuses, subjec as suc o inernal consisency - a lesrelaive - while being hauned by a srucural ension, he possibiliiesare cerainly no unlimied Wihou any preenion o exhausiveness, bu simply wih he aim of exhibiing he kind of arrangemenssociology resors o in order o link iself o criique, we can veryschemaically indicae some of he compromises ha seem o havebeen mos frequenly forged, and wich can combine several of he

possibiliies we sall now describe5A rs se o f possibiliies consiss in aking sociological and normaive advanage of a philosophical anhropology (which can be mademore or less explici) The abiliy of human beings o live in socieywill be associaed wi he exisence in all human beings of properies and caracerisics a can be specied diferenly depending onh anhropology in quesion (raionaliy; he capaciy o exchangegoods; he capaciy o communicae by conforming o requiremensof relevance; sympahy for he sfering of oers recogniion ec)Criique will hen consis in sowing how e exising social orderdoes no allow members, or some of hem, fully o realize e poen

ialiies consiuive of eir humaniy. These consrucions owemuch of hi criical power o e ac ha hey bank on a commonhumanity and herewi conain exigencies of equaliy of reamenbeween members of e same sociey A saisfacory sociey is onewithout leftovers an e exising scial order can be criicized in asmuc as i excludes, oppresses, scorns and so on, a greaer or lessernumber of is members, or simply prevens hem from realizing whahey are capable of as human beings

Bu his kind of consrucion mus confron wo ricky problems inparicular The rs consiss eier in criicizing any difference - whicmigh seem unrealisic and consequenly unconvincing - or jusif

ing he disincion beween accepable differences and unaccepablediferences, from he sandpoin of he philosophical anhropologyadoped The second sems from he fac ha he philosopical

10

THE STRUCTURE OF CRITICAL THEORIES

atopology wic serves s a basis for criique mus be boh sufil robus and sufcienly general o resis criiques ha aim ouce i o a paricular moral or religious radiion (as in he case ofthe accusaion of enocenrism); and, a he same ime, sufcienlyrecise o be declined in differen forms in such a way as o na?lee condemnaion of specic social orders We can add a s kd

of noraive suppor can eier be reaed in an aemporal fasionor isoricized, paving e way for an evoluionism or progressiv

ism, bu increasing e consrains of jusicaion required o acievercogniion in e framework of he social sciences, by demandingecourse o a philosophy of hisory compaible wih he longiudinalescripions furnished by hisorians

A differen se of possibiliies, less ambiious on a criical level ane previous ones bu beer placed o ake advanage of he specicresources supplied by sociological descripion, consiss in exracing normaive posiion serving as a basis for e criique o wich aerain social order is subjeced from he descripion of a order

iself and as a resul, giving less weigh o a normaive anhropologyplaced in a quasiranscendenal siuaion A rs ode of is ypean consis in playing on he differenial beween he ofcial and enocial. I will hen be shown a he ideal is order lays claim odoes no correspond o is aual oucomes and, onsequenly, o eeal condiion of is members or some of hem riique hen akesas is main arge he fac ha he order in quesion does no in factcnfrm o e values i assigns iself in principle

A second mode paves he way for a criique of law from an analysisof he condiion of cusoms A cerin condiion of he social orderwill en be open o being criicized as paological' (as Durkheim

u i) wen e rules posied in an esablished form (ie mos ofen,in modern socieies, legal' form), whose ransgression is accompanied by sancions, do no - or no longer ave eir guaranor inconsraining norms immanen in he social', wich by is okenare recognized or even inernalized by acors Tis criical posiionis rendered more robus when i cn ener ino a compromise wi ahisorical perspecive, as is he case when analysis inends o emphasize a he law as remained unchanged wereas cusoms avecanged (or evolved'), so ha e condiion of e law lags behinde condiion of cusoms.

In ese r wo modes of inernal criique, he normaive basis

(wich can remain implici) is a of a ransparen, auenic socieyA good sociey is one were all, and especially e poliical e

lies

in ower, agree on e effecive implemenaion of he ofally

1 1


13/102

THE STRUCTURE OF CRITICAL THEORI ES

proclaimedideals - especiallythose inscribed inlaw and/or wherelegalnorms, onwhichsanctions ofstate origin rely,arethe reectionin the legal order of the 'collective consciousness and therewth' 'of the moralnorms acknowledged by all members (or a 1ajorityofthem) in the social order

A third mode among the critical operations open to sociology,

while remaining very close to the descriptive requirements it is intenton subiting to qua 'science, consists in taking hold, to make normative use of them, of the moral expectations which actors di sclosein the course of their actions, in the belief that thy attest to theexistence of a moral sense in actors. Contrary to interpretations ofaction in essentially opportunistic terms, it is c redited with sufcientpermanence and robustness for sociology to undertake its modelling.In this case, the metacritical orientation will therefore be developedby collecting and synthesizing the critiques developed by 'peoplethemselves in the course o f their everyday activities. It will particularly rely on moments of dispute, when actors express their moral

claims, and also on collective interaction in the corse of which theyengage i experiments and when, employing the 'creativity of action ,they 'perorm the social in an innovative way. From a position ofthis kind, one o f the difculties encountered is constructing a critiquethat can resist the accusation of expressing nothing but the particularviewpint of the particular group or groups of ators on which observation has focused. That is why the metacritical position adopted willrely less on a substantive normativity than a procedural one Its mainobjective will be to sketch the contours of a social order where different points of view can be expressed, opposd and realized throughexperiments. By contrast, a social order where the conduct of such

experiments is impeded by the exercise of authoritarian power willcome under re from critique

The metacritical positions we have just schematically descriedshare the common feature that they incorporate moral judgements,whether these are formed from an anthropology or derived from thesocial order submitted to critique However, there is another pathleaing to critique which, bracketing moral references (or claimingto ), is based in the main on the unmasking of immanent contradic-tions, be these specic to a determinate social order or present in alarger set of social orders. In this case, critique is not taken on bythe sociologist in a personal capacity, in the manner of an ordinary

individual judging the state of reality on the basis of values. It derivesfrom the observation ( or prediction) that the order in question cannot(or will not be able to) survive, because it cannot nd the requisite

12

THE STRUCTURE OF CRITICA THEORIES

euces o resolve hese contadictions in itself. To various degrees,

s assumes the adopton of a historical perspective.

o exploit his possibility, it is necessary to pursue the sociological

storical description and analysis of the cases under consid

ation sufciently far to identify these contradictions, construct a

nealogy of them, clarify their future and, aboveall, asociate them

itcnictsthat counter-pose groups or classes m whCh these contions are embodied. A common characteristic of constructions

ased on a metacritical position of this type is rejectio of the idea

of a mmon good, or even thatof a space of debate where differ-

et points of view confront one another, and their replacement by

oions of struggle, power, dominationand power relations between

anagonisticgroups. Different critical orientations can be developed

onthis basis, depending inparticular on whether these strugglesare

isaged a bove all negatively, inso far as they entail the destruction

ntonlyofa particular order butof any social order, orpositively in

s much as theyenable theemergece of new poss ibilities andthe dia-

lecticl supersesson of the contradictions wose expression they are.In the rst case, these contradictions and antagonisms are asso

iated with conicts between values (and/or interests) which areregarded as beng, in essence, without a generally justiable solution,iher in the sense that there exists no value of a superior logical levelmking it possible to rank tem or because no historical dialectic senvisaged. The possibilities or a compromise between sociology andcritique are then rather limited and essentially distributed betweentwo options. The rst can consist in stressing the dissociation betweensociological analysis and political action, regarded as being inhabitedby logics that are not merely different but largely incompatible. As

a _ 'scholar, the sociologist strives to understand the meaning actorscnfer on wat occurs and to deploy probable chains of causality; asa man of action, the 'politician makes choices. The sociologist cando nthing but enlighten the politician on the likely consequences ofdifferent possible choices and/or criticize political decisions deemed'irresponsible but only in the sens that those who take them haverefused to face the consequences of their choices and thus acted inbad faith.

Another, moral radical option associates sociology with the preservation of order. The sociologist will then assign herself the task ofcriticizing poliial actions or arrangements that undermine order,

weaken authority, blur the values that give members of society moral'referencepoints and so on. This can lead to placing sociology -including in respects that warrant being called 'critical, even if they

1 3


14/102


15/102

THE STRUCTURE OF CRTICA THEORIES

- and pathetic - becase it is necessariy dooed to fai - to join thesocaed positive sciences, in what is ost contingent and open tochaenge in the I a thinking here, in particar, not so ch ofthe reqisite precision of o bservation as of he arks that accopanyits discrsive foration the accation of externa ars ofipersonaity (we' o one' instead of I'); of the proiferation of ref

erences to other nknown researchers, of who one does not wish toknow anything, and whose dispersed works are now ony identiedby a name, accopanied by a date and, for the prposes of precision,a page nber, the whoe encosed in the gravestone of a parenthesis; soeties aso of the ania for qantication, expressed in anostentatios accation of gres and tabes; or again of sharpcontroversies poarized over the atest argent thoght to ake thedifference - soething that avoids exaining shared preises, whichare often overshadowed; and so on. In short, of a the anoevresintended to insta the discorse in the organic textre of a body(the scientic couniy'), or in the fraework of a network with

goba' raications as if th destrction of the oevre in favorof an ataton eerging from the aggregaion of a tipicity ofpartia interventions sfced to reove the risk of partiaity - that is,to dissove the ghost of critiqe

Now, it is enogh to exaine a tiny fraction of the history o ordiscipines to se e that etacritica theories devp at the sae tie asthe descriptive socia sciences which they pt to work; and that thesetwo kinds of proj ect, which are in part incopatibe, are nevertheessprofondy interdependent Bt this is aso to say that etacriticatheories st concede the possibiity of a sipe exteriority. It is evendobtf if they cod readiy abandon any cai to ipartiaity as

inteectas in too ch of a hrry to egage n poitica strggessoeties see to beieve It reains the case that critiqe's dependence on socioogy has as its coroary socioogy's dependence oncritiqe. In fact, in their very conception, socioogica descriptions areorietated to the kind of ses that etacritica theories wi ake ofthe These s es wi argey constitte their ain stication Whowod be interested in a socioogy for socioogy's sake (in the waypeope refer to art for art's sake' ) that is to say, a socioogy, hich,exhasting itsef in ever ore sophisticated and eticos descriptions, has no other objective than its own fent as a discipineof knowedge? And frtherore, if it is accepted that this disipine

can ony have as its object the ways in which peope, throgh theirreexive activity, ake and break cectives, we can exaine whatthe very content of this knowedge' t be The processes thogh

16

THE STRUCTURE OF CRTCA THEORIES

i the actors in socia ife constitte the whoes ofwhich they

fom part, and case the to ast or sbvert the, are theseves

ite, in argeeasre, withthepossibiityof critiqe, not ony

en they chaenge existing orders, bt aso when they are ed to

ste Socioogywodbeastrangeactivity if, otof asort of

ispacedodesty or sheepishness, it forbade itsef a practice that

ntribtes so signicanty to thedeterinationof its obj ect Bydint

f wishing to pace the socia word at a distance, as ifin order to

oinate it fro withot, it wod deprive itsef of what gives it a

soa fondation

1 7


16/102

2

CRTCL SOCOLOGY AND

PRAGMATC SOC OLOGY O CR T Q E

I sh now tr to empo the schem I hve just sketched in orderto emine the w in which the ink hs been mde betweensocioogic description nd soci critique in the frmework of the

two progrmes I referred to t the outset critic socioog ndprgmtic socioog of critique

Critical Sociology

The second hf of the 160s nd the 70s were mrked in Frnceb

the devepmen of vrious critic trends often Mrist in inspi

rtn nd n prtcur of movements ciming the heritge of theFrnkfurt Schoo In this contet the originit of the criical sociology of dominaion estbished b ierre Bourdieu nd his tem ws

its disenggement from predominnt phiosophic pproches ndits nchorge in the prctice of socioog conceived s profession'combining concept cretion nd empiric ed work s cose spossibe Bourdieu's critic socioog is unquestionb the mostudcious enterprise ever ttempted to tr to conoin in the smethereti constrction high constrining requirements supervisingsocog rcce nd rdc critic positions Tht is so whwe c nd n ths uvre most of the probems posed b the inkingof socog nd ctque to whch I hve just referred

The origin theoretic frmework constructed b Bourdieu tointegrte socioog nd critique sw itsef s continution of the

cssics' It contins eements tken from Durkheimin socioogGH Med s prgtsm Schutz's phenomenoogic inspired ocioog or the cutur nthropoog of the rst hf of the twentieth

1 8

RICA SO CI OO GY AND PRGMATC SO CO OGY OF CRTIQUE

tu itsef br fro the conuence of ethnoog nd pschoi However s regrds the probemtic of domintion in thes snse it is bove the du contribution of M Weber nd tht is ced upon I t is therefore not surprising if we nd inrieu's oeuvre tension between on the one hnd n pprocheed to the fctu description nd nsis of the modities of

intion such s the cn be observed in different societies (theoes of domintion') nd on the other chenge to dominton which in the spirit of currents of Mrist inspirtion is geredrs n emnciptor im Nevertheess unike wht is found inost of the currents identifing with Mrism (nd perhps underhe inuence of Durkheim) in Bourdieu's cse the enterprise ofmnciption is min bsed on the prctice of socioog itsef Intis instnce socioog is therefore both the instrument for describingdintion nd the instruent for emnciption from domintion

doption of this du orienttion renders the tension contined ine roect of critic socioog especi sient It direct con

erns the inkge between sociology which though it continsnumerous contributions from phenoenoog nd intersubectiveproches is ws sefdened more or ess b reference to thereuireents of obectivit nd ioogic neutrit nd socialcriique The probe is on wht the tter cn e bsed Refusingo serch for bsis on the one hnd in reference to mrit orvues ( position condemned s morism) nd on the other in sevoutionis mking of the deveopment of sefprocimeddemocrtic cpitist ntionsttes sort of ide towrds which thend of histor is necessri directed (s in certin currents identiedwith Tcott rsons or Semour Mrtin Lipset of whom Bourdieu

is unspring in his criticisms) but so in phiosoph of histor ofte rist vriet (the succession of modes of production nd theecerbtion of contrdictions) Bourdieu's critic socioog mustinvoke vrious ter possibiities' without however seeking tospecif their import

The Problems Posed by Use of the Notion of Dominationin Critical Sociology

sh not spe out in deti the w in which th notion of domintion is empoed in ierre Bourdieu's critic socioog - somethingtht woud invove us in etended eposition - nd sh tke it swe known I sh restrict msef to recing rpid the obections

1


17/102


18/102


19/102


20/102


21/102


22/102

CRTCA SOCOLOGY AND PRGMATC SOCOLOGY OF CRTQE

normative difference io the very core of the concepta acitectr. ne possi

bity presnts itse f in the framework of the pragmaticsocoogy of rtqe. It can make se of severa formas ( describedabo

v) taken from different socioogica traditions - in particar,

postons deveoed b Aerican pragmaist socioogy (e.g. thenotn of expermentatn Dewey); Drkheimian mora socioo

which roots normativity in the coective; and, nay, certain

ton adptd by AngoAmerican mora phiosophy of commntaran nspratn. ne thinks, in particar, of the work of MichaeWazer, ho accords

geat importance to critiqe, bt envisages itabove a n so far as t s based on vaes recognized by a coective.In hat athor it is regarded as vaid when it eads to protest againstactns performed within a constitted grop and in its name, argingfrom the fact that these actions contradict the very vaes which themembers of the grop esteem.

In a pragmatist socioogy of critiqe, the metacritica position witherefore consist in making use of the point of view of the actors tha

is to

say, base itsef

on

their mora sense and, in particar, on

ther ordary sense of stce, to expose the discrepancy betweenthe socia word as it is and as it shod be in order to satisfy peope's mora expectations. By adopting the viewpoint of the actr thesocioogis t can in fact cast a normative gance at the word withotit being gded either by her persona predices (bond p, foreamp,

th a ctra afiation or poitica commitment or spec regn), or by the adoption of a sbstantive mora phiosophy(e.g. tiitarianism).

Starting ot from the mode of instice, estabished on the basisof inestitions, to hich I referred above, we can certainy condctcertan rtca operatns to a sccessf concsion. For exampe, wecan, as do actors themseves, chaenge certain tests by showing thatthey rest in dgements which are based not soey on an assessment of the forces expicity integrated into their ofcia format btaso on the impicit consideration of ad acent strengths, with stcnseqences. Take tests associated with ooking for a ob. Critiqewi attempt to show that tey are distorted by the covert consideration of invaid socia properties, as i s the case when peope denoncethe forms of discrimination that handicap some candidates (women,eop e whose famiy name indicates North African origin, peopedented as gay, the edery, etc. ). Again - a second exampe - it can

be shon that the reqirement of repeating tests is rarey satisedand rtcze the fact that the advantages resting from a sccessf test are invariabe attached once and for all to the person of the

0

CAL SOCOOGY AND PlAGMATC SOCOLOGY OF CRTQE

ir and that the same appies to those who have faied . Thiseh b ffse ase in F rane when peope denonce t e crrg e e ects, r benecia or predicia, of compettons gvng access o thees coles or maor state bodies, bt aso to eadershp postnh ge rms. However, one has a cear sense t at crta operatns

o is kind, however eitimate and socay sef, are nsfent to

sy the ambitions of a critica socioogy. Severa probems presentseves. he rst stems from the way in whch, especay n the co rse ofaiste, the divergences between t positions aopted by fferntcrs are to be interpreted. The poston adoped n n uscatonnsisted in constrcting a mode that makes t possbe to tegratete otaity of resorces which can be empoyed by actors

to mke

rtes or provide j stications. It is precise here that ths optn

s nnected to more or ess strctraist postns. Bt ths stanceis y defensibe by reference to two framewrks, the rt of tere niversaistic, the second more ctraist. The nversaistc

ework is expicity reected, becase the poities r trate ashistrica constrcts. As to the ctraist framework, t dspacedrm culture in the sense of anthropoogy towards the political. Thenormative spports that critiqes and stication are based n areassociated with systems rooted in s ocia reaity, whch are consdered be the prodct of the poitica history of a society. As

rest,

we observe variations between the contors of different poites andd ff above a between their arrangements in erent natnstate s.

The position adopted can therefore be chaenged, f xampe, froma commnitarian standpoint. It can in fact be ctczed for overestmating the integration of diferent actors and di!ferent gropsin state framework. Within one and the sae natnstate therean coexist more or ess integrated grops, sch that some of themmaintain at east in certain sitations among themseves , specicfoms of

normativity (omething the idea of mtictrais seeks

to captre). It can aso be arged, this tie referrin to the dea ofdomination that the normative spport s tegated to the systemof poities niversaize and impose on everyone positions that

cor

respond to the vaes and interests of dominant grops (domnantcass, coonizers, etc.) .

However the main difcty encontered by sch an approachin sstainig ts metacritica ambitions is the foing. The sci

a

actors whose disptes are observed by the socogst ae realtcThey do not demand the impossib e. Their sens e of reaty sstaedby the way in which they grasp their socia environment. They assess

1


23/102

CRITICAL SOCIOLOGY AND PRAGMATIC SOCIOLOGY OF CRITIQUE

the just or unjust, privileged or disadvantaed character of their condition by co

mparing their existence with that of people close to the

-some partcular work colleague, some fello student whose profes

snal succes hs ben greter than their, and so on. Or again, theyc?mpre ter tuan th that of their parents, or their currenttuatn th what it had previously been and so on.

In so doing, ordinary people rarely call into question, at leas in thenormal course of social life, the general framework in which the situ

tions that provoke their indignation and protest are inscribed - tats, the set of established test formats and qualications No doubtbecause, in the absence of totalizing tools, the contours of this generalset of tests, and their effects, often escape them. But above all becauseactors know implicitly that tests based on established formats arestronger than they are, so that it would be utter folly to demand forthemselves changes in their life that presuppose a radical transformation o

f this framework. Actors, at least when grasped in the course

of ther everyday activities, take reality, and the real character of the

eality test, seriously The waiter in a caeteria knows implicitly thatt would not make any sense for him to regard the fact that he is nota university professor as unjust, because he is not unaware of thefact that, put to th

e test, he would prove incapabe of satisfying, for

example, the reqrementsof a trigonometry exam (unless, having

completed the relevant studes, he possesses the requisite degrees andca protest that he has been excluded as a result of discrimination for example, because he is black or on account of his sex or sexualorientation, or other)

Moreover, we

mig?t a s

k

_if the model of the sense of justice estab

lshed on the bass of qes conducted in the 1 98 0s did not overdo

a meritocratic conception of justice, as a result of its contxtualdependence on

a moent of history characterized by the defeat of

attmts made prevus decades to validate a collective conceptionof JUtce, conceved as social justice.

A just society in the meritocratic sense is one where all actorsoccupy postions that correspond to their personal capacities,because reaty tests and tested reality are completely superimposed.It follows that not only would critique of the tests no longe have aratinale, but also the tests themselves would take the form of simplerotes and gradually become po intless 7 Everything leads us toth tat not only has a society of this type never existed, but alsothat t probably not realizable for various reasons. One of themstems from the unstabl and concealed character of the personalcapacities that the test s supposed to disclose. Since tests cannot

32

ICAL SOCIOLOGYAND PAGMATIC SOCIOLOGY O

FC RITIQUE

:nsantly repeted, te tendency ould certainly be o eek t_

'

rotesepowers inthe n?er:ostbeng oactors- thats, .

mthIr

gical substrate . A socetytent on beg metocratc S easy

atenedby some form or other ofracism or, at least, by a bio lo

auralism.Asecondreasonisthatitisimpossibletoconceive

s mats that make it poss ib le to arrange each test conducted

ly in such a way as to restrict the respect inwhich theperson

st be assessed or to neutralize contextual effects completely. It

olowsthattheconductof genuinely 'justt ests, fromam eritocratic

poi view, presupposes establishin? a particular est format freh particular test to which a part

cular person s subJected

a articular situation - something that would obviously result in

oving any comparative capacity from tests and thus strip them

of e power of justifying social hierarchies They would therefore

nolongerhaveanyutility.

It remains the case that one has a strong sense that, even in the

utpiancase ofa societywhere therelationship between reality tests

arealitywasperfectlyadjusted, thesocial worldwouldnotceaseto

eapotential targeto fcritique.Atl eastof thekindof critiquewhich

canbecharacterizedasradical, inthesensethat, basedonacomplex

xteriority, itopens upthe possibilitynotonlyofacritique oftheway

crrect orincorrect - realitytestsare applied, butalsoofacritique

ofrealityitself.

The Degree of Reality of Reality

e must therefore ask on what conditions a metacritical position

ased on the critiques developd by actors can prove conducive tohe development of a critique of reality. We shall say that this is thease when the actors themseles, or at least some of them, differentlyirect the operations, inherent in the sense of justice, which consist incomparing their condition with that of others But whereas in a meritcratic optic this comparison readly takes the form of an individualcmpetition leading to maximization of the differences from thosewho are faced with the same tests - that is to say, necessarily, actorswho are relatively proximate, at least in some respects - from the perspective of social j ustice comparisons that lead to stressing similartiesof condition ill be favoured. At the same time, the sense of justice

will be directed towards consideration of collective injustices andfavour the formation of a sense of the totality, opening up the possibility of moving backandforth between the particular situations of

33


24/102


25/102

CRTCAL SOCOLOGY AND PRAGMATC SOCOLOGY OF CRTQUE

casss, nations, thnic groups, and so n) th subjct of vrbs ofaction as dcptiv and obscur, in as much as it consists in trting ths dismbodid coctiv bings as if ty wr pop Thishappns whn on confrs on a coctiv th possibiity of havnga wi, cacuating, impmnting stratgis, assssing outcoms,appying rus and so on This viwpoint dmands that w abandon

invoking communiti to account for socia phnomna and assimiats ths communitis to ction That communitis and coctivsin gnra, takn in this sns, ar ctions, is undniab But th issubcos compicatd hn w considr th fact that rfrnc to communitis or coctivs) is far from bing a monopoy of socioogists;and that, in this, thy ar mry adopting in thir attmpts to thorizsocity a kind of construtin that is constanty mpoyd by actorsthmsvs in th cours of thir socia activity It woud unqustionaby b difcut o nd xamps of socitis whr this way ofconstruing th rxibiity of socia act ion is absnt It foos thata socioogy whos objct is moding th way in which socia actors

fashion socity can indd rgard communtis or, in gnra, coctivs) as ctions, but on condition of rcognizing that ths ctionssmingy hav a ncssary charactr and must thrfor, at ast bythis tokn, nd a pac in socioogica thory W sha rturn t thisthm and sk to carify it whn w broach th issu of intitution.)

Lt us at onc not that th rationship btwn this issu andwhat w hav cd - in connction with work on dnunciatonsof injustic - th sns of normaity as manifstation of th sns ofraity Th way raity prsnts itsf to vryon maks it po sibto undrstand why th v of acctabiity of a pubic dnunciationof injustic or a dmand is vry ow whn thy ar xprssd by an

isoatd prson to th point of risking bing chargd with madss),but incrass whn this dnunciation or dmand is chod b y othrs to th point of assuming a charactr of sfvidnc whn it sms tohav bcom accptab to appy th quaication coctiv' to thmIn ct, it is as if, for ach prson takn in isoation, th import ofraity had an uncrtain charactr In this th rationship to raityis a itt ik th rationship vryon has to thir own dsir according to Rn Girard Evryon rcognizs raity or rcognizs what,in thir xprinc, cary prtains to raity) ony bcaus othrsdsignat it to thm as such Raity suffrs from a spcis of inhrntfragiity, such that th rality of rality must incssanty b rinford

in ordr to ndur And it is doubtss a procss of this kind that mustb invokd to undrstand th ro payd, not for th socioogist butth actors thmsvs, by th rfrnc to coctivs Latr, w sha

36

CAL SOOLOGY AND RAGMATC SOCOLOGY OF CRTQUE

s w this radica uncrtainty is ncssary, at ast at an anayti v, to undrstand what ar usuay cad institutions and th, cntra in my viw, thy pay in th cours of socia if, buts to idntify th contradictions thy contain and which confr oniaity in its ntirty a paradoxica, fragi charactr)

Always the Same Who

ursuing th xamp of dnunciations of injustic, w can say that v of constraint xrcisd by th sns of raity on judgmntsaout actors' caims and dmands argy dpns on th xtnt towhich th attr ar prsntd or which coms down to th samting) intrprtd as bing individua or vn oca or, on th contrary, as bing coctiv in kind and capab of caiming gnraadity A ri toward gnrality is thrfor a ncssary conditionr th succss of pubic protsts, on condition that it is ffctd in

crdib fashionThat is why situations which can to b brif) b charactrizd asrvoutionary ar favourab to an xpansion in th scop o f protsts,wich is itsf th rsut of a rduction in th constraints xrcisd byth sns of aity on dmands in th ordinary situations of socia ifIn ths historica situations, charactrizd by th coctiv formuation of individua compaints, attntion to diffrnc is not aboishdut it is shiftd from attntion to th individua diffrncs twnthos who ar proximat to diffrncs which, at a distanc, sparatcoctivs or groups It is nvrthss ncssary to add that thisprocss can tak a pathoogica form whn gnra catgory diffr

ncs ar importd from without, and not drawn from th xprincof actors, who can tnd to giv thm matria form, to projct thmonto th spac of proxiity Thy wi thn idntify thos who njoyadvantags ocay sighty suprior to thir own as rprsntativsof thos xtrna, harmfu forcs aout which pop hav spokn tothm, to th xtnt that th procss of comparison can backr andtak th form of a mchanism of fragmntation and viont struggof a against a Thus it is tha rvoutions dgnrat whn thyar monopoizd by vanguards which st aout projcting onto ivdspacs dogmatic instrumnts of idntication and catgorization

In situation whr th procss of comparison is rootd in actors'

xprinc, howvr, th qustion of why th vau of som particuar prson was rcognizd in th tst mrgs, and whthr it isjust, is rpacd by a diffrnt qustion, which immdiaty taks a

37


26/102

CRITIC AL S O CIO LO GY A ND PRAGMATIC SO CI OL OGY OF CRITIQUE TCAL SOCOLOGY AND PRAGMATC SOCOLOGY OF CRTQ


27/102

CRITIC AL S O CIO LO GY A ND PRAGMATIC SO CI OL OGY OF CRITIQUE

withoutndinguptakingformin crdib, astng fashion (th cas,for instanc, n Franc with th catgory of midd cass ' , which,at last until rcntly, nvr succdd in aciving institutionalrcognition).

Lt us pursu th xampl of socal class. In a way, it i s quitright torgard thm as mr ctions. This ctiona charactr mrgsin particularlyclarfashionwhna substantiv dnitionof classs isgivn, as if th catgois that aris f romth workof catgorizationwr rootd from th bginning oftim in th rid fabric ofthsocial.47Thisricationforgrounds quasilgal oprationsof dni-tion andclassication andcrats a numbr of problms, whicharmryarticia - for xamp, that of c ass boundaris ' whichoccupid gnrations of Marxistsocioogists .But,fromanothr ang , wcan rgard rfrnc to socia casss as th ncssary pndant ofasocia ordr that maks rguatd comptitionbtwn individuas itsformost vau. 48 Assigningitsf th( unraizab ) idaofajustdis-tribution of individua abiitis, itinspecs realiyiself byformattingit through th intrmdiary of raity tsts . Th attr ar

mutuayadjustd so that waknss in on rspct, sanctiond by a craintyp oftst, ismor than iky toaffctth wayactorswihav tofac othr kinds oftst. In fact, athough ty ar supposd to baddrssd topop considrd in diffrnt rspcts, th fact that thyinvov th sam popgivs this sparationaforma charactr, andsuccss andfaiur tnd to b contaminatdinaccordanc wththfamiiar ogic ofthaccumuationof handicaps anddisadvantags.

ritical Sociology as a ritique of Reality

If it is acknowdgd hat actors ar gnray ndowd, on th onhand, with th cognitiv capacity to mak comparisons, so that itdos not scap thm that he same succd and he same fai awaysor nary aways) and, on th othr, with a sns of j ustic invovingth ida of a common humaniy, and hnc quaity btwn humanbings in princip vn if th attr can com into conict withxcusivist, nationaist or vn racist concptions of th coctiv),why do thy accpt th factua xistnc of inquaitis, which ar soobvious and , ab ov a, so prsistnt that thy ar difcut to justify,vn in a mritocratic ogic? Rworking th Marxist ida of aliena

ion, critica socioogy has oftn sought to intrprt th paradox ofapparnt submission to this stat of affairs by strssing actors' beliefsand th illusions of which thy ar agdy th victims, bcaus thy

40

TCAL SOCOLOGY AND PRAGMATC SOCOLOGY OF CRTQ

hmsvs undr th sway of dominan ideologies whos cat. structurs thy hav inernalized Wh not changing th idath somthing ik dominant idoogis dos indd xist, skingth to undrstimat and justify inquaitis, w can nvrthssso that ths constructs ar dirctd in th rst instanc to disciining th dominant casss thsvs, whos mmbrs, spciayn thy rach th thrshod sparating th status of chid fromhat of autonomous, rsponsib adut, aso ncountr th tnsiontn an gaitarian ida and a massivy unqua raity. Tha function of dominant idoogis is thrfor abov a to maintin a rativ cohsion btwn th diffrnt factions that mak uts cass and to rinforc as is indicatd by Raymond Aron'sintrprtation of arto ) 50 thir mmbrs' condnc in th vaidity oftir privigs. But whn it cons to th dominatd casss, diffrntintrprtations hav to b constructd, taking account of th rationship btwn th condition of th systms that nsur th runningof raity which can b mor or ss robust and th condition of

th coctiv systms actors can ry on to xtricat thmsvs froraity, chag its vaidity and, abov a, rduc its owrs.Tis is car whn w xamin th currnt stat of critica forcs in

apitaist dmocracis. Wat critiqu as a coctiv ntrpris currny acks is doubtss not so much critica nrgy, prsnt among aarg numbr of pop, as a background against which it cud brakoos and tak form to b orrow an imag from Gesalspsychologie),as if it has no soonr bn formuatd than it is intgratd into thformats that giv matria substanc to raity in its pubic dimnsions . It is th difcuty in braking fr of what to borrow a Sartranmtaphor) w can ca th serialiy and viscosiy of th ra - that is,

if you ik, its xcss raity - which discourags critiqu and not as istn said ) th absnc of a proj ct' or an atrnativ' to th prsntsiuation. As is cary indicatd, for xam, by th s ocia history ofth abour movmnt, past rvots hav nvr put off thir dramaticprssion uni an atrnativ' is prsntd to thm, drawn up in aits dtais, on th mod of th itrry and phiosophica gnr cadutopia'. On th contrary, it can b said that it is aways on th basisof rvot that somthing ik an atrnativ' has bn ab to mrg,ot vic vrsa. But rvot in th sns of insurrction - whos manifstation, fairy xcptiona, is itsf oftn a rspons to th stat ofxcption',2 i ony on mans among othrs of distancing onsf

from raity or, if you ik, relaivizing it. This procss of distanctaking is faciitatd, as w sha now argu, by socioogica ntrprissdirtd toward a mtacritiqu of th socia ordr, in as much as th

4 1


28/102

CRTCA SOCOLOGY AND PRAGMTC SOCOLOGY OF CRTQE TIC AL S O CIOLOGY AND PRAGMATIC SO CIOLOGY OF CRITIQUE


29/102

C T CA SOC O O AN A T C SOC O O O C T Q E

envisaged in so a as they act (as acos) h desciption will tendtowads caogaphy, metology and socal mophology (it willemploy statistics), and nally towads histoy (since the wold that isaleady thee is a poduct of the past). It wil theefoe employ instuments of totalization that have been fashioned to manage society andensue its govenance (most often in the famewok of states). Butthese manageial instuments, on which social eleivity is basedwhen it is govened fom above, ae (as we hav seen) employed bysociology as tools, wheeas, taken fom a diffeent angle, they constitute its objcs since they ae themselves socially constucted fo theeecise of a fom of powe.

The second position consists in stating fom the socal wold n hpocss of bng mad In this case, the sociologist will base heselfon obs evation of people in action and stess will be laid on the waythey make o (to adopt an AngloAmeican tem) pfom' it. eedesciption will be caied out fom below and will take situations asits obect, since it is in this famewok that action makes itself visibleIt will pioitize actos' inteactive and intepetative competence. Butit will have poblems in totalizing the effects of these actions.

he poblem is that these two appoaches, both of them uallylegitimate, will yield esults that ae dieent and even difcult toeconcile. In the st case, stess will be placed on the constaints andfoces that inuence agns n the second, it will istead be put on theceativity and inteptative capacities of acos who not only adaptto thei envionment, but also constantly alte it.

Given thei lack of attention to actos' citical capacities, wy doovaching citical sociologies seem, despit eveything, to gneatea citical powe supeio to that of pagmatic sociologies of citiuewhich, by contast, fully acknowledge them Thee ae pehapstwo main easons. The st is that, adopting the standpoint of thetotality, oveaching sociologies povide disadvantaged actos withcollective tools and, in paticula, modes of classication, which helpthem to contadict the individualizing meitocatic epesentationsthat contibute to thei fagmentation and hence domination. heinstuments of classcation that oveaching sociologies help diffuse(whethe they concen social classes, gendes, ethnic goups o geneations) thus povide the disadvantaged with tools to incease theicitical cpacities - that is to say, to stuggle against the foces whichcontibute to thei fagmentation and to identify by what (o whom)

they ae dominated.A scond, less obvious eason is that, in clealy adopting the standpoint of the totality - something which (as we have seen) aleady

44

TIC AL S O CIOLOGY AND PRAGMATIC SO CIOLO O C T Q

sss the pio adoption of a position of eteioity (sipleity) - oveaching sociologies open up the possibility of alvzaon ofeality (since to descibethe social ode inits total supposes doing it as if the eisted a position fom which thispala ocil ocn be compaedwithothe possi bl odes ) .Rlaivizat1on I S ctque s st move . By contast, pagmatc soc l

og, peciselybecause it is ootedin poimity and seton stating out

o eaity as itpesents itselfboth to the actos and the obseve,teds to poduce aneffect ofclosue of eality on itself.

Netheless, compaison between these two sociological po

ames is fa fom assigning all citical advantage to oveaching

socilogies . Seveal poblemsaise.e st poblem encounteed by oveaching sociologies pecisely

ces the location of the oveaching position fom which totaliation can be both sociologically elevant and effective at the level ofsoil citiue. Biey put, we cannot ignoe the fact that this posiin has been associated in the past with the diffeent nationstates,specilly in the case of the citical sociologies that developd afte thSecond Wold Wa and found themselves dealing with the development of th welfae state. In the Westen capitalist democacies, thispiod was maked in paticula by a einfocement in the naonalzan of social classes - that is to say, not only of the middle classes,who had beneted since the nineteenth centuy fom thei paticipation in the effots undetaken by the state to incease what Michaelann calls its infastuctual powe' ove society, but also of thepopula classes, who long emained moe o less ecluded fom thisntepise, and even of the dominant classes, whose supa o tansnational chaacte in the nineteenth centuy and st thid of thetwtieth centuy Mann has claly demonstated. To a lage etent,i was the oganizations of the nationstate and especially those of thewelfae state that supplied the documentay famewoks on whichcical sociologies wee based. Obviously, this applies to the sociopofssional categoies of Fance's National Institute of Statistics andEcoomic Studies - a tool which, asociated with the functioning ofnaional accounting and the Plan, was used by sociology fo descibing social classes, but also, fo eample, fo the sociology of wok,hose chosen teain (as is well known) was nationalized ms.Today, ctiue must confont a diffeent situation, maked by aneplosion of powe centes in pat situated below o beyond the levl

of the nation state. It must also take account of the cuent dynamic ofdaonalzaon of social classes, with the incease in the numbe ofmigant wokes - with o without legal documents - complled by

45

CRITICAL SOCIOLOGY AND PRAGMATIC SOCIOLOGY OF CRITIQUE ICAL SOCIOLOGYAND PRGMATIC SOCIO LOGY OF CRITIQUE


30/102

Q

political or economic necessities t ee thei ountries in te Southand also with the emancipation of part of the dominant classes frothe national space, enabled by the changes in capitalism and nancialglobalization to revive a supranational mode of existence tat habeen impeded by the world wars of the twentieth entury and thretreat of economies into national territories. The issue of the identityof the instances sociology must base itself on to effect totalizations

and in what forms, is therefore sharply posed, not to mention th difculty encountered by sociologists today in gaining access to documentary sources held by organizations that are much less favourablto the social sciences (with the exception of economics) than were thorganizations of the welfare state. It follows that critical reference tojustice is scarcely sufcient to dene not only the wholes within whichasymmetries are to be unmasked, 5 but also the beings whom it ispertinent to take into acount, be they human or nonhuman. 5

The way in which the baance is struck in critical sociology's pictures of reality between description of the forces of domination andescription of the actions performed by actors to escape it is an eventrickier problem. By underestimating actors' critical capacities anoffering them an image of themselves that stresses their dependency,passivity and illusions, overarching sociologies of domination end tohave an efect of demoralization and, in some sense, dispossession ofself, which - especially in historical contexts where reality seems particularly robust - can transform relativism into nihilism and realisminto fatalism. Becaus they overemphasize the implacable characterof domination, the preeminnce in all circumstances, includingthe most minor situations of interaction, of vertical relations at theexpense of horizontal relations ( also, moreover, within critical collectives), overarching theories are not only discouraging at the level ofpolitical acion, but also unsatisfying from the angle of sociologicaldescription. They make it hard to differentiate different degrees ofsubjection and to understand how actors can open up roads to liberation, if only by establishing necessarily local temporary zoes ofautoomy and, further, by coordinating their actions in such a wayas to challenge the necessity of a social order. Yet history providesus with numerous examples of conj unctures of this kind. By dint ofseeing omination everywhere, the way is paved for those who do notwant to see it anywhere.

This problem of the appropriate extension to b e given to the meta

critical orientation is rather comparable to that posed to HerbertMarcuse in Eros and Civilization, when, having extended theFreudian problematic of repression to all known forms of society,

46

ICAL

u constuctingthe conept of surplus repression to describe

theican societyo his time andsubmit itto aadical citique. 56

Sly, if e want to impart some meaning to the concept of

aion, it mustbe constucted in such a way that itcannot be

ely identied with the totality o s cial systems and, in pa-

iua (as we shall see ), o institutional opeations o detemining

a is, which ae inheent in the veycouseo lie in society. As in

se oepession and suplus epession, we must theeoe bei ositionto make a distinction between constaints, identiable

in aey lage numbeo societies (inot all ), whic donotaccod

it an ideal othe subect's absolute autonomy o a total libea

i o desie, but wose vey geneality tends to shieldthem om

tiue (b ecause it is acknowledged, at least tacitly, that in thei

sencetheewould simply be nosociety at all), and oms o oppes

sthat ae supeimposed o nodinay constaints, aepaasitic on

them, o eploit themtoshoe up the eteme powewhich cetain

ominant goups impos eupon dominated goups. Thispoblemca

albecomaed withthat posedto Dukheim (in a spiitwhich, on

tis oint,is notveya emoved om Feudand also, as hasotenen emaked, Saussue) , when, dening society by the constaint

xised by collective noms ove individual desies and behaviou

constaints whosetansgessionis accompanied bycollectivesanc-

tions- he nevetheless seeks to distinguish a nomal unctioning o

tese constaints om one he chaacteizes as pathological' . O

again, close to us, the way in wich Axel Honneth and his team

udetaketo identiy what theycall the pathologies ocapitalism', in

aticulaby employing a eintepetationo the Lukcsian concep

f reication. 57

Finally, it must be added that, out of a spirit of systematicity,oerarching theories of domination tend to reduce all asymmetriesto one basic asymmetry (depending on the case, social class, sex,ethicity, etc.) and, more generally, to ignore both the disseminatedatre of power (stressed by Michel Foucault) and the pluralisticchracter of the modes of assessmet and attachments operative insocial life (whch we sought to model with the concept of polity inOn Justication). The last point not only affects the validity of thsociological description. It also contradicts he critical expectationsof actors who, in democraticcapitalist societies, have learnt not toconfuse the work of emancipation with adherence to worldviewsthat present themselves as absolute, and who even seem to haveacquired the kind of tolerance for contradiction that is the mainbulwark against the various forms of fundamentalism.

47

CRTCAL SOCOLOGY AND PRAMATC SOCOLOGY OF CRTQE TICAL SOCI OLOGYAND PRAGMATIC SOCIO LOGY OF CRITIQUE


31/102

Q

he elationsip to plualism and to its oposite - absolutis - istheefoe on of the stumbling blocks of oveaching theoies f domination In effect, one of the weapons of these citical constuctionsof domination consists in showing how, i the social oes undechallenge, an alignment occus between diffeent domains - such aseligious beliefs, moal and aesthetic oientations, symbolic epetoies, ways of estalishing the tuth and so on - on a centl axisdetemined by this token as the dominant ideology and itself adjustedto the specic inteests of a goup, be it a social class, a national oethni goup, a gnde o wateve But this denunciation of absolutism should divet citical theoies in thei tun fom the temptationto educe all dimensions of social life to a facto deemed deteminantin the last instance , and instead commit them to plualism. he needto acknowledge plualism often seems to escape oveaching theoiesof domination, which tend to identify ecognition of pluality withlibeal individualism

o be cedible today, sociologies diected towads a metacitiue

of domination should daw the lessons of past failues and, takingheed of the diffeent aguments that have ust been developed, euipthemselves with an analytical famewok that makes it possile tointegate the contibutions of what we have called the overarhingprogramme, on the one hand, and the pragmati programme, on theothe Fom the oveaching pogame this famewok would takethe possibility, obtained by the stance of exteriority, of callengingeality, of poviding the dominate with tools fo esisting fagmentation - and this by offeing tem a pictue of the social ode andalso pinciples of euivalence on which they could seize to makecompaisons between them and incease thei stength by combining

into collectives But fom the pagmatic pogamme such a famewok shoud pay attention to the activities and citical competencesof actos and acknowledgement of the plualistic expectaions whichin contempoay democaticcapitalist societies, seem to occupy cental position in the citical sense of actos, including the mostdominated among them

hus, fo xample, the kind of collectives citical actos todayseem disposed to combine in ae those established in one partilarrepet, which does not pevent each of the paticipants fom connecting, in other repet, with diffeent kinds of collective. eewe can follow the analyses (developed, fo example, by Zygmunt

Bauman o Malcolm Bull) that have ecognized the valoizationof ambivalene as a featue of the citical ensembles established indemocaticcapitalist societies. hey theeby come into opposition,

48

en onict, withothe tendenies,whichcan also in theiwaybe

cditical, seeking toeduce alldimensions ofexistence to apef

tial elationship (eligious, ethnic, sexual, social class)embodied

i aop dened substantivelyandoften associated witha teitoy,

ealrvitual tendencies that bythis tokencanbechaacteizedas

fudamentalist.u the attempt to ende the oveaching pogamme and the

oamme ofpagmaticinspiation59 compatiblecannotbe satisedith akind ofcollage It assumes a continuationof the specically

slogicalwok tat aims to analyse, wih the samemethods and

i th same famewok, the social opeations which give eality is

conous andthe social opeationsthataimto challenge i t. We shall

setch itinthefollowingtalksby compaingwhat institutions doand

hatcritique does whenthey aeat wokinsociety.

49

3 THE POWER OF NSTTTONS


32/102

3

HE POWE R OF INSTITUTIONS

One of the lessons to be dawn fom an exmintion of the difeentways in whih the elationship between soiology and soial itiueis established - the subet of ou st tak was to emphasize ananalytial distintion between metaitia theoies and itiues thatmight be alled ordinry The fome, ba sed on soiologial pitues,unmask and hallenge the foms of domination in a etain soialode fom a position of eteioity The seond ae aied out fomwithin, by atos invoved in disputes, and inseted into seuees ofitiue and justiation, of highly vaiable leves of geneaity But Ihave also undesoed the intedependene between these two typesof itiue metaitial theoies annot ignoe the dissatisfationsepessed by atos and thei ltiate aim is to efous them in suha way as to give hem a obust fom; as fo the atos, they often lookto metaitial theoies fo esoues to fuel thei gievanes

The seond talk eamined two pogammes that ae faed withthe poblms posed by the elationship between metaitue andodinay itiues The st - itial soiology - is based on ompomise fomations between oveahing soiologial desiptions andnomative stanes and its pimay aim is to enlighten atos aboutthe domination they ae subjet to without ealizing it and to povidethem with esoues to develop thei itial potential By ontast,the seond - the pagmati soioogy of itiue stats out fomatos' itia apaities and initially aims to use the means suppliedby soiology to make them epliit Net it seeks to establish nomative positions - onseuently, of a metaitia kind - by basing itselfon the modelling of these odinay itiues and the mor sense osense of justice epessed i them Notwithstanding the signiantdiffeenes between these two soioogia pogammes, espeay

50

as eads the kind of ontibution the an make to soia l itiue,it ut be leay egisteed that they ae both atiulated with theens y whih, in the vey ouse of soial life, odinay atos and,i tiula, those s ubet to eploitation and domination seek to geta gi on what is happening that s, to oveome thei poeessnessThis talk and the followng wl be devoted to dentfyg thoseens, at least in thei fomal dimensions I woud ike, with the toolsf soiology, to eview the way in whih we an intepet the fatthat smething like critique eists in the soia wold - and this by, asit e, baketing the vey eal ontibutions made by metaitiathoies to the deployment of itiue in its most eveyday, odinayfoms To p ose the uestion o f the vey possibility o itiue assumesognizing that soial ativity is not and doubtless annot be onstany itial The critic form stands out against a bckgroundwhih, fa fom being itial, an on the ontay be haateize b a sot of tait adheene to eality as it pesents itself in theouse of odinay ativities; o by a takenfoganted wold that hasbeen stongly stessed by soiology and, in patiula (in the temsemployed hee) , soiology inspied by phenomenology - fo eampe,the wok of Alfed Shutz The agument I am going to develop isthat, to aount fo the pegnany of this bakgound, we must etunto the soiology of institutions The uestion of itiue seems to meinetiably bound up with that of the institutions it leans n I shatheefoe now eal some elements of the soiology of institutionsonsideed fom the pespetive of a soiology of itiue

In Search of 'Institutions'

I we pusue the peeding disussion dealing with the appopiateetension of metaitia theoies of domination, we enounte anespeially tiky pobem onening what soiology als institutions In soiology the notion of institution oupies, as John Sealeindiates in his book on the soial onstution of eality', a athestange position On the one hand, the onept of institution isone of the disipine's founding onepts one of those it is vitualyimpossible to ignoe And in most soiologial witings the teminstitution eus, often inidentally, as if it wee both neessay andobvious On the othe hand, howeve, the onept is aely the obet

of an attempt at denition o even speiation It is used as if itwee selfevident, altough in vey diffeent senses depending on theontet Someties the institutional and the soial ae petty muh

5 1


33/102

TH POWR OF NSTTTONS TH POWR OF NSTTUTONS


34/102

a accusd of a naiv bli f in th istnc of tnal ntitis ( sucas th stat', social classs', th family', tc.), which, in th modof ssnc, would b in an ovaching position visvis th objccollctd by mpiical obsvation of conct situations.

The llusion of a 'Common Sense

In my viw, th main dfct of th full pagmatic position - at lawhn, abandoning th tain of th dsciption of sgmnts ointactions, it is ngagd in a uasinomativ pspctiv is thait dos not follow th highly pomising oad it has itslf mappd outo a conclusion. h main contibution of th pagmatic standpointo sociology has bn to undlin th uncertainty that thatnsocial aangmnts and hnc th fagility of ality. But it stophalfway whn it placs too much condnc in th ability of actoto duc this unctainty. In som cunts mo o lss divd fomthis paadigm (as somtims in Goman o woks ptaining to th

nomthodology), this lads to invsting actos with a sot of tacit wilto coopat so that somthing hangs togth. It is as if popl insocity w ncssaily inhabitd by a dsi to potct (l ocal) sociaaangmnts, to psv links in good condition, to sto adhnc to ality, thby making hoo of a social vacuum th maindiv of homo sociologicus. his ovstimation of th capacitipossssd by actos to cat maning o pai it, and to cat linko sto thm, phaps sts, at last in pat, fom th cssiv signicanc attibutd to a common sense supposdly dpositd in omway in th intioity of ach acto takn individually.

Rfnc to somthing lik a common sns is psnt, in vaiousfomulations fing to diffnt t

Boltanski. on Critique_emancipation

Documents

Transcript of Boltanski. on Critique_emancipation